Summations Only

Faith's most recent description from her Message 951 was: Some have made attempts to explain why they think this is wrong, but it is clear from Faith's replies that none have worked so far. I'm encouraging further attempts at understanding what Faith thinks is happening as landscapes are gradually covered with new material (very slowly over centuries and millennia) that would cause the surface to become uninhabitable.I wonder if it would help to ask Faith this question: If a homeowner spreads a ¼ inch layer of topsoil across his lawn every year, and if he does this every year for 10,000 years (a 200 foot depth of additional topsoil), what happens at some point to keep his grass from growing, turning his lawn into a barren landscape?

As can clearly be seen, Faiths argument deals only with the previous now-buried surface, but not with the present surface where life would live.Thus it does not deal with the question of whether the region becomes uninhabitable by the occupants of that previous surface, just as I have pointed out.If Faith cannot see that much - even after it has been pointed out - is there any hope that she can understand the topic at all ?

I am up to date on this thread.In the scenario Stile describes in Message 957, I think it would be very helpful if Faith could describe when and how the landscape becomes uninhabitable in a way not accounted for by modern geology.

Admin thinks I should address this.I have to admit having trouble keeping track of what's going on in your scenario so if I misread it please correct.First of all if it takes 100 years to bury something an inch deep, by that time any creature would have been decomposed completely, utterly disintegrated, never having a chance to get fossilized at all. Even if it's untouched by scavengers it isn't just going to lie there waiting to be buried in sediments. At 2500 years it's only under two feet of sediment? That isn't even enough to "crush and flatten it" as you claim would be happening. It wouldn't even be recognizable at 2500 years, it wouldn't even exist any more. That would have been the case already at 100 years, even five years for that matter. Organic things that are not buried decompose rapidly. I think standard Geology has unrealistic ideas about the conditions needed for fossilization but not this unrealistic. So your stratigraphic column is made up of the sediments that accumulate on top of a now-very deep landscape? I start getting lost in here somewhere. You've got landscape continuing to exist for a very long time, just continuing to grow on top of whatever sediment accumulates, and that's reasonable enough. But the problem is that you have to get a rock out of a landscape in the end. You seem to have lots of landscapes or a landscape that keeps growing even beyond the depth of the thickest rock in any strata column. Somehow you have to get things down to a level that would actually appear in a stratigraphic column and my impression is that you have way too much going on for that. One environment has to end up in a flattish featureless rock. That means all those things in the landscape such as trees have to go or get disintegrated down to a few bits and pieces within the rock.You also have depths of what sounds like plain sediments that have accumulated. But a stratigraphic column is made up of sediments that point to environments. You've got ocean and land environments but only as sediments, not landscapes with a variety of plants and other living things, and you only have one fossil buried under all that. In reality there are millions of fossils found in stratified rocks. Bazillions. You don't seem to have accounted for that. So you've got the original landscape which is finally rock at 1600 feet deep and two million years, with only one fossil in it, with all that sediment on top of it that doesn't have the characteristics of rock in the stratigraphic column since it's never been a landscape/environment. By identifying it as the stratigraphic column you clearly intend it to become rock, but they lack the characteristics of the rocks in a column. Different sediments? You haven't mentioned that. Fossils, none. Normal characteristics of a landscape with plants are not mentioned.Remember, a stratigraphic column is one extensive flat rock on top of another. At the same geographic location. All these landscapes are forming at that same location, one on top of another. Creatures are roaming around on the increasing levels of the landscape at that same geographic location. Your main problem is getting all of it down to the proportions and characteristics of those slabs of rock. And when that happens THAT's when there is no more habitat. But I have to admit this is one place I get confused. You keep recreating habitat as sediment accumulates, which in a way seems reasonable, but at some point it all has to become rock.\At some point you have creatures moving elsewhere. But remember, their fossils are in a particular rock at this particular geographic location.So it seems to me you are not keeping the characteristics of a stratigraphic column in mind as the end product of whatever happens to an environment. You finally end up with one rock layer but it is buried very deep under sediments. But the stratigraphic column is a stack of rock layers and does not include mere sediments, only sediments that are former environments which are seen IN the rock, in its characteristics that imply a source of the sediment, in its fossils that define what creatures supposedly lived in the former environment. And each rock has its own peculiar fossils implying its own different environment from those below and above it. Those creatures that keep going on living on higher levels of sediment are supposedly from the original landscape now buried deeply. But if we're getting new sediments with new landscapes we're also getting new creatures. You have to keep track of which ones end up in which rocks.Also, as the column increases in depth/height it gets dated to more and more recent time periods. In all those millions of years you've got landscapes piling up there should have been a fair amount of evolution of the standard microevolution sort, meaning plenty of recognizable changes in the creatures. {In reality such changes only need a few hundred years; millions is such overkill nothing would be left living, but I'm overlooking that for now.} But a rock in a stratigraphic column usually exhibits one version of a creature. Many rocks higher you may get another version of the same creature. Trilobites show up this way in the rocks, different varieties in different rock layers.But now I'm losing context. I'm afraid this is rather a jumble of thoughts but I think I've said enough to show that there are problems with your scenario if you intend it all to end up in a typical stratigraphic column.It's a much better effort than I've seen before, however, so it's probably worth trying to refine it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying.I would however, modify it to say that the habitat is not buried, it is completely destroyed. It is only the topography that is preserved, the terrain, if you will, upon which the habitat exists.This is common. However, even where the habitat is destroyed, there are places where it is preserved (as I have said many times) in such places as lake sediments, river sediments, coal seams and sand dunes. This is also common, and that is why we have dinosaur fossils and sequoia fossils, etc.The other thing is that, though the environment is destroyed, it is NOT destroyed everywhere. In other words as a beach sand encroaches the continent (a la Walther's Law), there is always a beach and there is always a land environment behind it, so the habitat never really disappears, it just moves. There is plenty of time for plants and animals to migrate landward.The thing to remember is that the habitat existed on older bedrock, so the fossils in that bedrock do NOT represent the habitat.And later, when the habitat is overrun, it is buried by sediments which will also have fossil NOT representative of that habitat.Does this make sense?

No. A strat column includes all layered rock at a given location. No problem. In this case you are talking about marine sequences such at that in the Grand Canyon.Totally different from, say, the coal seams of the late Cretaceous in Utah. An environment for each creature has always existed. Just look at the modern distribution of shorelines, swamps, deserts, mountain ranges, etc.However, within a single sedimentary environment living creatures avoid burial by continuous sedimentation.

Pondering Stile's post I realized more about a problem I was struggling to get into focus when I gave my first response to it. As I've said, this puzzle situation is unwieldy, it's hard to keep all of it in mind, and I forget even my own solutions at times, especially when I'm trying to deal with a scenario as complicated as Stile's.The problem I'm now thinking about has to do with the part I quoted here: I quoted it because I knew there was a problem in it even if I didn't clearly see the problem at that time. In the first place it took a while to figure out that Stile is thinking of the land sediment as representing one rock in the eventual stratigraphic column, and the ocean sediment as another, and then another rock of 80 feet of land sediment. One sediment on top of another, presumably eventually to be lithified and take their place in the stratigraphic column.I already pointed out some problems with this, in that the rocks in the column point to environments but these don't seem to represent environments, except in their sediments which he defines as ocean sediment or land sediment. He hasn't described them as ever having been environments or landscapes with plants and animals living in them, he hasn't mentioned fossils etc etc etc, though he does describe them as the geological column. So he must have in mind that they will become lithified and end up there.But besides the problems I mention above, there is this major problem that has to do with the creatures that are being deprived of their habitat, meaning those that once inhabited the now-deeply-buried landscape at the very bottom of this stack of sediments, that is now lithified. The scenario all along has had the exiled creatures able just to move from one level of accumulated sediment to another, with the plants and trees of the original landscape continuing to reestablish themselves at new levels as well. Which seems perfectly reasonable. UNTIL I remember that each rock in the stratigraphic column represents its own peculiar environment with its own peculiar living things in it. Even if it's not identified as a new time period each layer is sufficiently different, peculiar unto itself, that creatures from an earlier environment simply cannot move into this layer; it's a new frame of reference. They don't belong there. Their fossils are found in their own landscape or environment which is now deeply buries, and it's a new collection of fossils that is found in the next layer up. Not that there can't be some overlap but that's not to be assumed, you'd have to have very specific rocks in mind to be able to say that, and even if there is some overlap there are others that won't overlap.So here's the problem: This is another barrier to the creatures of the original habitat being able to move into a new habitat. The new habitat belongs to a different set of creatures as determined by the content of the rock that ends up in the stratigraphic column. They CAN'T simply roam from level to level if those levels are sediments that are going to become rocks in the column as Stile seems to be saying in this case they are. I've mostly had in mind the accumulation of simple sediments over the original landscape to further its lithification, in which case they wouldn't end up in the stratigraphic column but be eroded away leaving only the lithified rock. I haven't pursued the next step in that scenario, of the formation of Landscape or Environment #2, but I think insurmountable problems show up there very soon. I'll try to get to that. Meanwhile in Stile's scenario we have the creatures of Environment #1 left without a habitat not only because theirs has disintegrated and left only a rock, or deeply buried, destoyred and inaccessible, but because the sediments accumulating above belong to a different time with different living things. They don't belong in that rock. This is another way the standard geological system breaks down in the attempt to get the parts of an environment into the rock that represents them in the present. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now I'm seeing edge's posts and would really like to think about them but I'm also so sleepy I'm about to nod off. Sorry about that. I hope to get to them later.

OK, that's a more accurate statement. I have a problem when you speak in the present tense like this since I'm focused on what would have happened during the supposed time when a particular environment existed as determined from the contents of a orck in a stratigraphic column. What is common now may not apply to then. " ...places where it IS preserved" doesn't tell me if anything like this happened then. All I'm going on is one habitat as indicated in one rock in a stratigraphic column. If that is destroyed what's the evidence that there are: The only evidence from the strat column is the one habitat. There isn't evidence in that rock of those other environments, lake sediments, river sediments etc etc etc.{But also, how do sediments, coal seams and sand dunes provide a place where a habitat is "preserved"? For some kinds of insects maybe...}But the main question still is What's the evidence there is any such alternative habitat aviailable at all given that the only clue to any habitat is in one rock in a strat column? This rock is a layer of flat featureless surface that extends most likely over some great distance, between other rocks of the same general description. It represents its own environment so the creatures have to stay within tht environment.But I don't really see much connection between what you are saying and what I've said, I'm just throwing out possibilities into the wind. But again you are talking in a sort of hypothetical present tense and not addressing the conditions in the stratigraphic column that don't provide for any such alternative environement, only the one that is now destroyed, that is now a huge flat rock. Where is there even a place for another environment to exist, such as a beach? And again, how is a beach a habitat for anything but a few insects? And how long as you expecting the exiled inhabitants of the (buried?) rock to survive while getting to this alternative habitat?Again since I'm not sure what you are picturing I'm not sure how to answer you. I didn't have bedrock in mind, just a rock in a strat column. How did you arrive at bedrock? But it doesn't matter to me which rock you are talking about I just want to know which it is and what its habitat would have been and so on. In a way, but I'm still not getting what your main point is.

quote:

---

Pondering Stile's post I realized more about a problem I was struggling to get into focus when I gave my first response to it. As I've said, this puzzle situation is unwieldy, it's hard to keep all of it in mind, and I forget even my own solutions at times, especially when I'm trying to deal with a scenario as complicated as Stile's.

---

I find this really bizarre. None of this is that complicated.

quote:

---

I already pointed out some problems with this, in that the rocks in the column point to environments but these don't seem to represent environments, except in their sediments which he defines as ocean sediment or land sediment. He hasn't described them as ever having been environments or landscapes with plants and animals living in them, he hasn't mentioned fossils etc etc etc, though he does describe them as the geological column. So he must have in mind that they will become lithified and end up there.

---

Even the things that aren't explicitly mentioned are very clearly implicit (and the formation of a fossil is right in there) so this "problem" doesn't really exist. And if you find the post too complicated already I don't think that adding additional details would even be helpful to you.

quote:

---

The scenario all along has had the exiled creatures able just to move from one level of accumulated sediment to another, with the plants and trees of the original landscape continuing to reestablish themselves at new levels as well. Which seems perfectly reasonable. UNTIL I remember that each rock in the stratigraphic column represents its own peculiar environment with its own peculiar living things in it.

---

Not really. You have three layers described and no movement between them. Of course there is no reason to think that the creatures living on the original terrestrial landscape cannot retreat from the slowly advancing sea or that their descendants cannot be included among the land creatures expanding into the region when the sea retreats. That is just something that you assume.

quote:

---

This is another barrier to the creatures of the original habitat being able to move into a new habitat. The new habitat belongs to a different set of creatures as determined by the content of the rock that ends up in the stratigraphic column. They CAN'T simply roam from level to level if those levels are sediments that are going to become rocks in the column as Stile seems to be saying in this case they are.

---

If we actually look at Stile's post the nearest thing to that is land creatures reoccupying the region when the sea retreats. That is hardly impossible.Don't forget that his scenario only covers 2,000,000 years, a small part of a major geological period.So, it seems that the "problems" are purely imaginary.

I fail to see how you are saying anything different than I just said. I tend to have land habitats in mind though I sometimes remember to mention the marine. In any case I have no idea what you are talking about here. Again you are talking in the present tense and not addressing anything to do with the puzzle about the stratigraphic column I'm trying to keep in mind, in which you'd have to show that there actually was an environment for a creature that has lost its habitat as shown in the rock in the column. You are postulating environments that are NOT shown in the rock in the column. You don't know if they existed or not. The rock is a huge flat slab. Where did those environments exist? The fossils of the creatures that lose their habitat are found in a particulat rock in the strat column. If they move somewhere else would their fossils show up somewhere else? But how could that be? They are in that particular rock that points to their habitat that no longer exists. This is one of the main problems with this idea that the creatures can just move elsewhere. They have to stay in their own environment and their own time period because that's the only evidence we have of them and they certainly can't show up somewhere else in the rock record. Yeah, I guess, but what's the point? None of this has anything to do with getting from an ancient landscape to a flat rock in a stratigraphic column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Notice to jar and to PaulK: I am no longer reading your posts. I find them to be irrelevant, disruptive and unhelpful.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing that I know of. But I don't even know why burying an environment/landscape should ever produce a flat slab of rock of the sort we see in a stratigraphic column. I could see hardening happening at some depth due to compaction and chemical processes, but not in that slab form we see in the strata. (I also wonder how you avoid to some extent lithifying the sediment that's there to do the lithifying, which would interfere with the terms of the puzzle since the point is to explain how just what is in the stratigraphic column got there, just that particular rock and no others.)Since I've posed the problem of getting from an environment that's supposed to have existed based on the clues in a rock, to the rock that contains the clues, I'm simply following the requirement that lithification requires burial, supposing the deposition of sediment to do the burying, assuming we get the rock we want and not asking other questions about it yet.But I suppose you have in mind something more related to the question of why creatures whose habitat has disappeared under a depth of sediment can't go on living on top of the sediment? Well, that depends on what animal we're talking about and what was in the habitat that they need that they no longer have. Grass growing on the sediment may simply not suffice. Perhaps they need trees for some reason, or a particular kind of plant or insect etc.abe: (Stile's assumption that the things that were part of the ecology of the original habitat would just go on reseeding and otherwise reestablishing themselves in the new sediment would solve that problem at least for a while, but all your homeowner is growing is grass and nothing is depending on it as far as you've said so it's a lot simpler situation.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have every right to be willfully ignorant.

Hi Faith, you seem to have many issues with the scenario I explained. That's okay, we can get to them all eventually (I read your second post as well).Just wanted to say again that I'm not a geologist. I'm kind of learning this as I go along as well. I thought that if you go through it, and I go through it, then we could both see (or discuss, anyway) any of the "glaring problems" we may run into.I think the first issue you brought up is a very important one, and will lead into many of your other issues. I'd like to focus on that until we can come to an agreement, if possible. So, for the next while, we will only be referring to the first 2500 years of the example I explained. Once we get past that, we can expand the timeline.I'm going to re-quote the above in smaller bits to address what's going on: You are correct.
My scenario was overly simplistic in order to try and keep the "unwieldyness" of it all down a bit.
I would like to remain focused on the geologic timescale and get to the stacks of rock eventually. A little leeway from your part in accepting this fossilization would be helpful.You are absolutely correct that most land-creatures would be decomposed and "utterly disintegrated" and can't be fossilized. "Most" is even an understatement... it would be in the realm of 99.99% "most." But you do accept that sometimes fossils form, right? Can we just assume that "some form of fossilization" took place for this particular creature in order for it to eventually become a fossil? Let's say... it gets completely coated in tar so that no insects or bacteria or anything would touch it. And, also luckily for us... the fossil was in a place that was simply undisturbed for the 2500 years of it being buried 2-feet deep in the sediment.Can you accept this for now? If so, great, we can move on. If not... just let me know and we'll have to work something else out before moving on. If you'd like, I don't even have an issue with saying that God preserved this creature from bacteria/disintegration in order to have a fossil... for now, anyway. Once we get to the geologic column stack-stuff, we can revisit this if you'd like. I don't understand this statement.
If it's untouched by scavengers (other creatures, bugs, bacteria... untouched by all scavangers...) why wouldn't it just lie there waiting to be buried in sediments? Where would it go? What would move it if all creatures, bugs, bacteria leave it untouched? It's dead. Yes. That's correct.100 years for "about 1 inch"
2400 years for "about 24 inches"
2500 years for 2 feet (just to keep numbers generally round-ish).This is all from a constant deposition rate of a quarter-of-a-mm every year.
From my brief checks, this is a general, average deposition rate (when areas are in states of deposition).If we're looking into what "mainstream geology" says about the geologic column... then we have to use the numbers and rates that "mainstream geology" uses. They say it's a very slow process.When I googled a few things I saw deposition rates as low as negatives (erosion rates) and as high as 3-4mm per year.
I picked "1 inch per 100 years" because it was within this range and the numbers came out generally nice to look at and understand.
If you'd like, I can redo the scenario with a higher or lower rate that we both agree on, just let me know. I completely agree that 2 feet under is not enough to "crush and flatten it."
You're wrong, however, in saying that I claimed this. What I said is that this weight is enough to "start" crushing and flattening it. Not "finish" crushing and flattening it.
The idea was attempting to show was that there is some weight upon that creature at this point, and that weight would begin the flattening process. Maybe at 2-feet-under it only flattens by a few millimeters. Maybe a bit more. But the process is just starting... it won't finish until much later. The rest of your issues goes back to the fossilization of the not-touched creature.
Are you okay with accepting that this creature gets-fossilized-one-way-or-another at this point? (and we can move onto more of the geological-column issues...)
Or would you like me to describe and amend the scenario to adopt a more detailed account of how the fossilization could occur here? (and we will focus on this 2500 year period for a longer time...).Also, it is important to note that for this entire 2500 years, there is "a landscape" at the surface. Animals are living and dying (most decomposing and disintegrating as you suggest). Plants and trees are growing and dying as well. The environment is changing in the sense that generations are going by, but not-changing in the sense that living things exist and "a landscape" exists. The living things simply deal with the incoming rate of sedimentation (1 inch per 100 years) and go about their lives.